SMiSA's Latest Update

[oaksoft]

3 hours ago, BuddieinEK said:

 

I am trying hard to remain neutral and objective here and please do not think ill of me just because Stuart referred to "we" meaning him and I!

But really?

Why?

So who can attend the meetings then and if not in an official capacity then you should have no formal input ergo why attend?

All I look for is complete transparency so that I can have trust in the group.

 

Hang on. If you are trying to remain impartial can you just at least post that you accept there are only 10 members and that you have fallen into the trap of believing Dicksons bullshit?

Edited December 27, 2016 by oaksoft

[oaksoft]

11 hours ago, Isle Of Bute Saint said:

Can only imagine what its like for his colleagues in his place of work. 

It must be absolutely awful. I have worked with these guys before. They usually end up isolated and frustrated just as Dickson is. Social media gives these people a voice they really dont deserve.

[oaksoft]

13 hours ago, faraway saint said:

Yes you are and yes you are.

I have spent years digging down to the level of c**t. I havent passed you or Dickson yet so I think I have some way to go.

[antrin]

a zinger to end the year.

 

I'd rest on those laurels for a day or two.  You deserve it. 

[BuddieinEK]

Hang on. If you are trying to remain impartial can you just at least post that you accept there are only 10 members and that you have fallen into the trap of believing Dicksons bullshit?

Read back.
I did.
Tit.

It was he haw to do with believing any other poster and more to do with being caught out by the poor layout of the weblink... but caught out I was... as have you been apparantly.

[Kombibuddie]

 

6 hours ago, cockles1987 said:

ust checked, 10

If there's 11 then name them all.

 

 

"Who we are" lists

David Nicol, George Adam, John White, Jim Cumming, Colin Orr, Peter Black, Tony Dorris, Tony Black, Barry Mitchell, Jim Crawford & Alan Quinn which on my abacus counts 11.

I am most definitely "not in the know" as I have lived out of Scotland for just gone 30 years and my participation is that I pay my money and trust the elected SMISA board members to act in the best interests of SMISA for it's members.

The SMISA website at best, is a bit misleading as I automatically assumed that since there are 11 men listed then these are the elected SMISA board. I expect there are a quite a few of SMISA's 1300+ members that would conclude the same.

From his posts in recent weeks, I have also thought that Kenny Morrison was now a member of the SMISA board as he appears to be responding on behalf of SMISA and not someone who was just invited to attend meetings and maybe be asked for his opinion on some things. I have no problem if he is or if he isn't, nor if SMISA want to have a board of 8 or is it 10, maybe it's 12 or 13, ach, they can have as many as they like for all I care but what I do care about is accuracy. I want to be able to decipher the information being put out there quite easily and not have to be relying on another row on BAWA to determine the facts of 10, 11 or 12 or whatever.

I want to know the people that I am entrusting £1440 (over 10 years) of my money, will provide me with accurate information. There is nothing (as far as I can see but please point it out to me if I am missing it) on the list of "who we are" that suggests 1 of those listed is not on the SMISA Board.

Transparency (4.4) !! seen that bandied about a lot recently. Accuracy, Honesty and Transparency. That is what I expect of an organisation that I am essentially gifting £1440 to. It is not transparently obvious which 10 (as you state) of the 11 men listed are the SMISA board members.

[Stuart Dickson]

1 hour ago, oaksoft said:

Hang on. If you are trying to remain impartial can you just at least post that you accept there are only 10 members and that you have fallen into the trap of believing Dicksons bullshit?

Well according to rebella only 8 members are elected - one is appointed as secretary, and the Chairman is selected from those who were elected - so that makes 9. The SMISA website lists 11. Kenny Morrison seems to believe he's been co-opted on to the SMISA Board, despite not being mentioned on the SMISA who are we pages, and claimed he raised the issue about missing minutes, while David Riley appears certain Kenny and him haven't been and don't have any formal input. No-one seems to know if David Nicol is on the SMISA board or if he resigned, despite the news article claiming he would work on both boards. And amongst all of that SMISA still haven't produced the minutes of their meetings, still don't have a business plan and in six months of club ownership the Community Benefit Society - which rebella claimed wasn't a Community Benefit Society despite the constitution, and their registration with the charities commission - has yet to put on a single even that benefits the community. 

And yet some on here - including you - still argue that this mob are fit to run a football club. 

[Stuart Dickson]

2 minutes ago, Kombibuddie said:

 

"Who we are" lists

David Nicol, George Adam, John White, Jim Cumming, Colin Orr, Peter Black, Tony Dorris, Tony Black, Barry Mitchell, Jim Crawford & Alan Quinn which on my abacus counts 11.

I am most definitely "not in the know" as I have lived out of Scotland for just gone 30 years and my participation is that I pay my money and trust the elected SMISA board members to act in the best interests of SMISA for it's members.

The SMISA website at best, is a bit misleading as I automatically assumed that since there are 11 men listed then these are the elected SMISA board. I expect there are a quite a few of SMISA's 1300+ members that would conclude the same.

From his posts in recent weeks, I have also thought that Kenny Morrison was now a member of the SMISA board as he appears to be responding on behalf of SMISA and not someone who was just invited to attend meetings and maybe be asked for his opinion on some things. I have no problem if he is or if he isn't, nor if SMISA want to have a board of 8 or is it 10, maybe it's 12 or 13, ach, they can have as many as they like for all I care but what I do care about is accuracy. I want to be able to decipher the information being put out there quite easily and not have to be relying on another row on BAWA to determine the facts of 10, 11 or 12 or whatever.

I want to know the people that I am entrusting £1440 (over 10 years) of my money, will provide me with accurate information. There is nothing (as far as I can see but please point it out to me if I am missing it) on the list of "who we are" that suggests 1 of those listed is not on the SMISA Board.

Transparency (4.4) !! seen that bandied about a lot recently. Accuracy, Honesty and Transparency. That is what I expect of an organisation that I am essentially gifting £1440 to. It is not transparently obvious which 10 (as you state) of the 11 men listed are the SMISA board members.

Agree completely Kombi. Whether this is down to poor information on a website, or the lack of minutes from meetings it's shambolic at best. Factor into that the job description for the club director post that has since disappeared off the website - but which specified that those applying must have experience of law, accountancy or of project management when infact it was open to any member and it's hard not to just shake your head in bewilderment at the state of the Supporters Association at the club. 

I'm glad I stopped handing over membership fees. Once there is some proper transparacy, and a board in place that I can trust and which is willing to live up to it's claims about community involvement I may review my decision, but in the meantime my money is going elsewhere. 

[Loyal Supporter]

On 14 December 2016 at 11:30 PM, Stuart Dickson said:

SMiSA have covered the cost of the repair to the Undersoil Heating without referring to the membership. The agreement with the board of directors is that it is in the form of an interest free loan. The committee it appears thought that "it was better to put this money to use for the benefit of the club when it would be sitting in the bank otherwise." Nice, huh. 

Then the vote this month for the £2 per month spend of cash is just spend it on the playing squad, with a subsequent question of whether the membership want to top up the £2 per month pot with money left over from last month. This is not taking the form of a loan. Nope. The members of SMiSA are expected to take a gamble with the accumulated cash pot, and presumably the next three monthly cash pot, on the judgement of Jack Ross, that the one single player that this might help purchase will save the club from relegation. Sadly there were no alternative options put forward by the committee - no mention yet again of investment in community projects to put the club at the heart of the community. 

I'm going to have to seriously consider whether SMiSA have misappropriated their intentions, and whether I am willing to continue to give over £25.00 per month to a group who clearly do not intend to fulfill their pledges in their pre buyout propaganda. 

Well I also contribute every month . I understand how you feel and your correct to be aggrieved. However I really do think there is not much option on this occasion . It's all down to the fact that Gordon Scott is not even embarrassed about what's going on ! He should be putting money in and should be speaking about this shambles . Everyone seems to think he's saved a The Club but there is a lot more still to come . The man is a very good salesman 

[David Mc]

Am I alone in thinking you are a very poor wind up merchant?

[Eaglesham saint]

51 minutes ago, Stuart Dickson said:

Agree completely Kombi. Whether this is down to poor information on a website, or the lack of minutes from meetings it's shambolic at best. Factor into that the job description for the club director post that has since disappeared off the website - but which specified that those applying must have experience of law, accountancy or of project management when infact it was open to any member and it's hard not to just shake your head in bewilderment at the state of the Supporters Association at the club. 

I'm glad I stopped handing over membership fees. Once there is some proper transparacy, and a board in place that I can trust and which is willing to live up to it's claims about community involvement I may review my decision, but in the meantime my money is going elsewhere. 

FFS naw he's got a pal 

[Stuart Dickson]

48 minutes ago, Loyal Supporter said:

Well I also contribute every month . I understand how you feel and your correct to be aggrieved. However I really do think there is not much option on this occasion . It's all down to the fact that Gordon Scott is not even embarrassed about what's going on ! He should be putting money in and should be speaking about this shambles . Everyone seems to think he's saved a The Club but there is a lot more still to come . The man is a very good salesman 

On this issue I definitely agree with you. I think it's crazy to have put out the begging bowl in such a blatant and obvious manner emptying the cash pot on just the second quarter and to do it on the basis of bolstering the wage budget is damned embarrassing. Jack Ross will now be under extreme pressure from the St Mirren support to spent their money wisely, whatever player comes in is going to have his performances and his social behaviour put under intense scrutiny, and if St Mirren don't finish 9th or above Gordon Scott and Jack Ross are going to look extremely foolish. The potential for lost memberships - like mine - and for others if this tapping into the fund continues must be considerable as members can agree to respect a democratic vote, but at the end of the day there is nothing there to tie them in for the full 10 year period if it looks like SMiSA are as hopeless as they look right now, and if it looks like the St Mirren board are taking everyone for a ride. 

If Gordon Scott was going to go cap in hand for cash then he should have done it on a cash for equity basis, giving SMiSA a larger % shareholding right now, on a loan basis, or on a matched basis with every shareholder being asked to contribute a similar amount per share. And the SMISA board can't be let off the hook for this either. They are the ones who gerrymandered the vote to exclude all other options - like the portable shelters - from the vote to make this exclusively a "yes / no" vote on spending the cash. Disgraceful behaviour from all concerned and so early in the process too.

[Stuart Dickson]

19 minutes ago, cockles1987 said:

 

In the who we are, nowhere does it describe David Nicol as a board member or director of SMiSA now.

 

You're wrong. He's on the board

http://www.smisa.net/news-archive/5-general-smisa-news/221-smisa-director-election-results-announced

Quote

While David is already part of the SMISA committee, both of the other candidates have been attending our meetings in recent weeks, and we would welcome their contributions towards the running of SMISA in the future, as the trust needs people who can help take it forward.

There has been no resignation notice issued to members since then either. 

Edited December 27, 2016 by Stuart Dickson

[oaksoft]

3 hours ago, BuddieinEK said:

 

Read back.
I did.
Tit.

It was he haw to do with believing any other poster and more to do with being caught out by the poor layout of the weblink... but caught out I was... as have you been apparantly.

 

The day I start misreading website and use that to launch personal attacks on the integrity of people who help run the club is the day you can call me any name you like and you will find me agreeing with you.

[oaksoft]

Double post.

Edited December 27, 2016 by oaksoft

[oaksoft]

Triple post FFS.

Edited December 27, 2016 by oaksoft

[Kombibuddie]

11 minutes ago, cockles1987 said:

 

 

In the who we are, nowhere does it describe David Nicol as a board member or director of SMiSA now.

 

& it doesn't list 7 of them (I think) as being aboard member or director of SMISA.

The fact he is listed in the "Who we are" section suggests otherwise. If I was a newbie, looking to join SMISA, I'd see his photo and read the spiel that says

Quote

David's main focus with The Trust has been supporting on the legal aspects of the deal. He was part of the negotiating team brokering the deal between the buyers and sellers and has developed the shareholders agreement between SMISA and Gordon Scott

and think he is.

That, to me, interprets SMISA Board Member and I suspect many others would see it the same way. Like 7 of the other 10, there isn't a "committee title" like Chairman, Secretary or Treasurer assigned to any to distinguish what their role is but it looks from here that David Nicol is one of 11 men on the SMISA board.

As I said previously, I couldn't give a monkeys stuff who is and who isn't as long as they are acting in the best interests of the SMISA membership and ultimately, St Mirren Football Club. My expectations remain the same, I expect there to be structure, honesty & transparency and compliance with the constitution.

[Kombibuddie]

51 minutes ago, Eaglesham saint said:

FFS naw he's got a pal 

Care in the community

[oaksoft]

2 hours ago, Stuart Dickson said:

Well according to rebella only 8 members are elected - one is appointed as secretary, and the Chairman is selected from those who were elected - so that makes 9. The SMISA website lists 11. Kenny Morrison seems to believe he's been co-opted on to the SMISA Board, despite not being mentioned on the SMISA who are we pages, and claimed he raised the issue about missing minutes, while David Riley appears certain Kenny and him haven't been and don't have any formal input. No-one seems to know if David Nicol is on the SMISA board or if he resigned, despite the news article claiming he would work on both boards. And amongst all of that SMISA still haven't produced the minutes of their meetings, still don't have a business plan and in six months of club ownership the Community Benefit Society - which rebella claimed wasn't a Community Benefit Society despite the constitution, and their registration with the charities commission - has yet to put on a single even that benefits the community. 

And yet some on here - including you - still argue that this mob are fit to run a football club. 

No. I am arguing that YOU are not needed. I am also pointing out that not for the first time, BuddieInEK is pretending to be the voice of reason but in reality he is playing the same game as you but on a much more tolerable level. How could you possibly misinterpret every single thing you read without it being deliberate.

Edited December 27, 2016 by oaksoft

[Stuart Dickson]

10 minutes ago, cockles1987 said:

 

 

 

Go on, show me where I'm wrong.

Here's what it actually says


David Nicol - Club Director

David has extensive experience negotiating multi-million pound deals with international clients through his role with a large Engineering firm. He has experience working in an in-house legal department negotiating contractual terms and conditions. Currently David is in a business development role. David’s main focus with the trust has been supporting on the legal aspects of the deal. He was part of the negotiating team brokering the deal between the buyers and sellers, and has developed the shareholders agreement between SMISA and Gordon Scott.

David has been a St Mirren fan his whole life, his first St Mirren game was a 2-1 defeat to Meadowbank Thistle in the early 1990's, a result which stood David in good stead for the many years of misery to come.

 

 

 

Right here - in the article which was written AFTER the Who IS SMiSA page was created stating that he is a SMiSA board member

http://www.smisa.net/news-archive/5-general-smisa-news/221-smisa-director-election-results-announced

There hasn't been any resignation notified to members. Therefore he is STILL a SMISA board member, as well as the rep on the SMFC Ltd Club Board. In fact I'd go further and say it would be astounding if he had resigned his SMiSA board status and was no longer the SMISA representative on the club board.  

Edited December 27, 2016 by Stuart Dickson

[Kombibuddie]

4 minutes ago, cockles1987 said:

 

 

It does descibe their rolls for some of the others.

Communications and finance to name two.

 

I am sure you are probably right on that point but hey, lets run round in circles a few more times.

The link's SD has just posted suggests 11 members. The website with "who we are" suggests 11 members to the untrained in all things SMISA but, I expect you are closer to the SMISA core and know differently. Perhaps you could have a word with the communications guy and ask that their communication improves and folk like me don't get misled into thinking someone is something they are not.

anyone got a good cure for dizziness, all this running round in circles has done me. Nurse!

Edited December 27, 2016 by Kombibuddie

[Stuart Dickson]

4 minutes ago, cockles1987 said:

So i wasn't wrong, nowhere in the who we are page does it describe David Nicol as being on the board or a director now of SMISA.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Only because whoever wrote the article is calling it a committee rather than a board - which is how the Constitution describes it.  

The whole SMiSA set up is looking like a cluster f**k of the highest order. Utterly shambolic. The fact there is no clarity about who is a board member or not - even amongst people who are attending board meetings - highlights the massive failings going on in there right now. The SMISA board don't look fit for purpose at all, indeed SMiSA doesn't look fit for purpose at all and yet members are trusting this shower with over £15,600 per month. 

[Guest TPAFKATS]

The day I start misreading website and use that to launch personal attacks on the integrity of people who help run the club is the day you can call me any name you like and you will find me agreeing with you.

Double post.

Triple post FFS.

Hahaha, this is great!

[BuddieinEK]

Hahaha, this is great!

Made me laugh... but not enough to take the silly man's bait.

[Loyal Supporter]

1 hour ago, Stuart Dickson said:

On this issue I definitely agree with you. I think it's crazy to have put out the begging bowl in such a blatant and obvious manner emptying the cash pot on just the second quarter and to do it on the basis of bolstering the wage budget is damned embarrassing. Jack Ross will now be under extreme pressure from the St Mirren support to spent their money wisely, whatever player comes in is going to have his performances and his social behaviour put under intense scrutiny, and if St Mirren don't finish 9th or above Gordon Scott and Jack Ross are going to look extremely foolish. The potential for lost memberships - like mine - and for others if this tapping into the fund continues must be considerable as members can agree to respect a democratic vote, but at the end of the day there is nothing there to tie them in for the full 10 year period if it looks like SMiSA are as hopeless as they look right now, and if it looks like the St Mirren board are taking everyone for a ride. 

If Gordon Scott was going to go cap in hand for cash then he should have done it on a cash for equity basis, giving SMiSA a larger % shareholding right now, on a loan basis, or on a matched basis with every shareholder being asked to contribute a similar amount per share. And the SMISA board can't be let off the hook for this either. They are the ones who gerrymandered the vote to exclude all other options - like the portable shelters - from the vote to make this exclusively a "yes / no" vote on spending the cash. Disgraceful behaviour from all concerned and so early in the process too.

Extremely well put and with you 100 % . I admit that I'm possibly a bit more fottunate in that my Son finished Uni and has got a good job so IVE a bit of spare cash so even if the contribution increased I'd still pay up . However I'm in the minority so SMISA and Gordon Scott better not push things . Scott came accross badly at recent AGM and he's had a very easy ride up until now and this surprises me . IVE said from the start that you can have no doubt whatsover that The Club will need to " Dip In " to the funds so the takeover as it's been presented just will not and connot happen . As for Jack Ross he's improved a lot of players but football is an extremely risky business . He could sign a real find and the player could get an injury loss of form etc just so so many factors .

you are spot on Scott should be putting funds in for players or at least 50 50 with our funds .